Archive Result

20081012GRGRWisdom7

(Sunday evening Gelek Rimpoche)

Questions and Answers

Audience: Can you explain the difference between truly existent and inherently existent?

Rimpoche: This is a difficult subject. My understanding is that truly existing and inherently existent are the same. If you truly exist that is the inherent existence we are talking about. But on the other hand, if you look at all existence as truly existing, it is maybe different. We are trying to use a terminology that does not necessarily belong here. We are trying to utilize that for a totally different purpose. We try to have translations of old, ancient terms such as rang zhin gyi drub pa. That can be translated as "truly existing", or "existing from it's own nature". It can be translated as "inherent existence". For me it is difficult to separate. On the other hand, relatively existent is also true existence. So if you are looking from that angle, then every existence is true existence. I think it depends how you use the language. This sort of difficulty is going to go on for a little while yet.

My understanding is that when that terminology was translated from Sanskrit to Tibetan it took 100 years to settle the meaning of terms. I don't think it will take 100 years here, hopefully not, but it may take some time. It depends on people using the language, their understanding of the meaning of the word, how the word is defined.

Audience: The terms 'truly existent' and 'inherently existing' were used to describe differences between the Svatantrika Madhyamaka and the Prasangika Madhyamaka and that was confusing.

Rimpoche: It is confusing. The Svatantrika Madhyamaka say that the pure, faultless mind does not only label [things and therefore they become existent[ but from its own nature, something exists.

The Prasangikas say that no such kind of existence is ever available. We can talk about it, and rather than settle on one simple word like true existence or inherent existence we can explain the terms in two more sentences. We will be better off explaining what it is than trying to settle it with one little word.

Audience: Can you clarify then how in the Svatantrika Madhyamaka school things exist intrinsically but not truly?

Rimpoche: I think they are asserting it the other way round: things for them exist truly but not intrinsically. So we just mentioned that. I think for that Geshe Yeshe Thapke's teachings on drub ta will be transcribed very soon and as soon as that is available we can look through that and gain more understanding of the different schools.

This may give us a little more help.

Audience: How can the isolate, which is permanent, referent an impermanent thing?

Rimpoche: That is the word the translators are using for dok pa. It is very strange. The 'isolate' process goes like this: this is a glass. Therefore it is isolated by all the things that are not glass. That part, which is the opposite of not glass, is that something physical? No. The understanding of that is callded dok pa - 'isolate'. That becomes something permanent. It doesn't change or do anything, it is not created. That is really ma yin pa lai lok pa - the opposite of what non-glass is. We may have to borrow the "is" from President Clinton.

Audience: We might be able to borrow it, he might not need it right now....

Rimpoche: It seems that in Sanskrit it is called "the exclusion of not that". So it is something that is part of this. There is not another thing there. That's why this "opposite of not that thing" is permanent.

Audience: How do we overcome the sense of hopelessness when it comes to analyzing jig ta and beginning to dismantle it?

Rimpoche: There is no sense of hopelessness to me at all. The moment you start looking at jig ta (complete spelling: jig tsor la ta wa) you focus on what you are really grasping at and that is "me". When I begin to look at that grasping mind of "me", what is it grasping at? I get nothing else except the collection of my skandhas. Using that in my own mind, in my own imagination, that is the "me". Although you are not saying it, but you know better than that.

Then when you have that, you begin to realize that it is a perishable material. Therefore, the fear of losing it is automatically there. Fear will come, everything will come up automatically. However, I don't feel or see a sense of hopelessness in there. It really gives you a sense of hope. If you can destroy it at this point, at the end of the destruction you will have a tremendous amount of freedom, of openness. Yes, there is fear of losing, of recognizing the perishable basis and you can't find that "me". But a little information is coming - it might not be knowledge - and at the end of that there is a huge reward. That gives you excitement, rather than hopelessness.

Some people may get a feeling of complete hopelessness and fear. They may sense: I am not going to find "me". I am going to lose "me". That is because we don't know how to establish [a functioning[ "me" [ out of that. That is my feeling.

Three nights ago I watched TV. I had this pain and I couldn't sleep. So I looked and there was a television program, showing Stephen Hawkins' thesis of black holes. There is a theory that the black holes are pulling everything in, but positive atoms or whatever cannot be dissolved, cannot be pulled into the black hole. The negative ones all go into that black hole. Then it is static, nothing moves. Then out of that black hole, suddenly comes out a very new thing. I couldn't help thinking OM SVABHAVA SHUDDAH SARVA DHARMA SVABHAVA SHUDDOH HAM - All is empty, from the emptiness arises this and that.

But then the problem over there [with that idea of Stephen Hawkins[ is that when it is completely static, all crunched away, and nothing is there, in that case there is no activity, no action. But emptiness should have activity and action and in that model that is not the case.

That's what I thought when I saw that. If this theory really works out it will be a very good example for us to imagine how emptiness dissolves everything and reprocesses it and something comes out. The "reprocessing" alone tells you that there is some kind of continuation of something, but it is not the old thing. That cuts the inherent existence. I am not sure if it is going to work like that, but you can think about it. I am not saying that is really all true. I don't know enough about it. I only saw it one night in a TV show, because I couldn't sleep.

That is how I engage my thoughts. The visual thing works for me. I don't have to understand the language. I hear a little bit here and there, but I see it visually. By seeing it and a little bit hearing or reading, it works for me. That is what makes my mind work at 3.00 in the morning.

At the end, somehow it has to come together. That doesn't mean that if we get to that point scientifically, that we see emptiness or master emptiness. It doesn't mean we cut the root of samsara. It doesn't mean that at all. But it will help us tremendously to understand much better than just talking about it like we do now. Whether it is inherently existent or not, truly existing or not - just now we are using words and running around.

By the way (talking to David Mellens, Sanskrit professor) , did you find out what a balbaza really is?

Audience: (David) The Sanskrit dictionary says "a coarse grass". Maybe if you look in old British Colonial records they would give you the genus and species. I don't have that with me.

Audience: What is the relationship between dependent origination and karma?

Rimpoche: Why do you ask that question? What do you see?

Audience: I see that the interdependent origination points to the union of emptiness and form, whereas karma to me is just more about causes and conditions, without maybe an understanding of emptiness. But I wonder whether ultimately they don't go to the same place.

Rimpoche: Good thinking. Cause and effect is one way of presenting interdependence. Every result depends on a cause. Everything depends on parts and parcels. I am not going to say that the interdependent nature and karma are the same thing. But I am definitely saying that they complement each other. Results depend on causes. Without causes results can never arise. Results not only depend on the cause alone, but also on many other parts and parcels. Karma and dependent origination complement each other very strongly. Cause and effect will function without our knowing that this is karma and dependent arising. It happens with or without our knowing. In order to be dependent arising you don't have to know about it. Same with karma. I think they function together, complementing each other.

Audience: How does the mind of an enlightened being function?

Rimpoche: (laughs) Let me give you the usual answer:

Enlightened mind is part of mind. But not all minds are enlightened mind.

So mind is the general category and enlightened mind is a specific type of mind. Then there is a category that is neither, mind nor enlightened mind. The mind of a Buddha is both, mind as well as......so you have these three things combined together.

That is one way of looking at it: as a relationship between mind and enlightened mind.

Another way of looking is: non-enlightened mind will be able to develop and transform and become enlightened mind.

I am not sure that whether that is the cause of enlightened mind or not, but it is sort of the possibility, actual the probability of our mind. My mind will be able to become enlightened mind. That way of looking is through the process of developing mind itself. There may be other ways of looking at it, I don't know.

Audience: This is a question about dark and bright eons. Buddhas are compassionate. Why don't they appear in dark eons?

Rimpoche: Because they are afraid of darkness. (general laughter) They need light! You know, Ribur Rimpoche, at night used to turn all the lights on. He wouldn't sleep in the dark at all. If you made it dark he would get very nervous. Maybe it is because he was locked in Chinese jails for very long time. If you went into his room in the middle of the night you would see all the lights turned on. So maybe the Buddhas are afraid of darkness. I am joking.

The dark and light eons are named as periods when a Buddha officially appears as Buddha or not. That is a very official way of counting. There are 1000 Buddhas in this fortunate eon or kalpa. The periods in which an official Buddha does not appear is when Buddhism is not there. These are labelled as dark periods. That does not mean that there are no Buddhas at all. There may be Buddhas functioning at that time, but not as official Buddha.

When you look at that system of functioning, we are right now still in the tenure of Shakyamuni Buddha, the 4th Buddha of this eon. He is functioning as official Buddha. The moment we talk about "Buddha" he will come up and say "Hi, I am here". That acknowledgment is there. His teaching is alive and we still know him. It is functioning. So it is his tenure. Then the gaps in between the tenure of official Buddhas are dark eons. But you never know how this is really happening. Honestly. There are books and texts and sutras and tantras written about it, but it is very strange to me.

You know, this is supposed to be the period of Shakyamuni, the 4th official Buddha. It has been going on for 2600 and some years. That means that the period of the 3rd Buddha, Amithaba Buddha, has completely ceased, right? But then you look at certain groups of Chinese Buddhism. Look at the "Laughing Buddha". In Tibetan Buddhism the "Laughing Buddha" is supposed to be one of the Chinese benefactors of the 16 arhats, some kind of rich business man who sponsored all these 16 arhats. Sometimes they are also counted as 18 arhats. But when you look at the Chinese system carefully, that Laughing Buddha is Maitreya Buddha, the Buddha of Love. Also, a number of times, Maitreya Buddha appears in monk's robes. You see this depiction of a big monk in robes, carrying a shoulder bag and walking with a walking stick.

In the traditional Buddhist teachings and texts, particularly Panchen Sonam Drakpa, in his praise of Maitreya Buddha, says:

NGÖN DZE GELONG JAM PA ZHE DRA SHE

DAG TU CHANG CHUB SEM PA JAM PA NGÖ

MA UNG SANG GYE JAM PA SEN SONG WA

In the previous Buddhas' tenure, you were known as the Buddha, "The big monk."

Today, (in Shakyamuni's tenure) you are known as Bodhisattva Maitreya.

In future you will be the official Buddha Maitreya.

This Chinese Laughing Buddha in monk's robes, as you can in various images in various temples (and you still see all those dolls) , that is Maitreya Buddha in monk form. That was supposed to be from the period of Amithaba Buddha. And the people practicing in this Chinese tradition don't say OM MUNI MUNI MAHA MUNI YE SOHA. They say NAMO AMITAFO. They are talking about Amithaba Buddha. Maybe that is some kind of left-over from Amithaba Buddha's teaching that is still functioning, even while the official Buddha Shakyamuni's period is running into 2600 years. It is possible. No one can rule it out. Nobody has done a study on it. I am not saying this is what is happening. I am just saying it is a possibility. Maybe there is an overlap of certain segments and portions. We didn't have that much communication earlier. Now we have tremendous communication. The world has become small. Perhaps a certain portion of the previous Buddha's tradition has been maintained continuously, whether the period was over or not. That could be. We cannot rule it out for now.

So, coming back to the question: the Buddhas must be so afraid, they try to overlap and maintain the light. Each of these dark, degenerate ages, are described according to very traditional old Indian culture, definitely more than 2600 years old. So there is every possibility these overlaps of Buddhas' periods can occur.

On the other hand, even if there is no official Buddha, the enlightened beings don't disappear. They may not appear and be counted as one of the 1000 official Buddhas. But still, they are functioning and active. For example, today we say that we are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha and it is his period. But there are many other fully enlightened beings active. So they are around even though it may be counted as a dark age.

Audience: I was wondering if in all the different buddha universes, the buddhas will be absent at the same time in the dark eons. For instance, will the paradise of the eastern buddha be without a buddha at the same time that the "Southern Continent" (Jambudvipa) is without a buddha.

Rimpoche: Truly speaking, I don't know how this is counted. My suspicion is that they count it on the basis of Dzambudipa alone - in that sphere alone. Having said that I haven't seen any documents or writings. No one even talks about it. But my thinking is that they are really counting the Dzambudipa only, because even if you don't bring the vajrayana into the picture, just the mahayana alone, according to them, all these pure land activities are never ending. So where are you going to find a dark age? It has to be on the basis of a certain geographical area, according to a certain way of counting at a specific time and somebody, somewhere in the middle of India, calculated all this and probably said that this period will be labeled a

dark age, that period will be labeled as light age, because this buddha is going to come and that buddha is going to come. All this is probably based on certain geographical areas. This would be according the mahayana. The theravadins don't accept that many buddhas anyway. I am not saying this is all how it is. I am just thinking aloud. It could be this way; that is all I am saying. I am just thinking aloud.

Audience: I am wondering how much time - in years I suppose - has passed between the third Buddha and the fourth, Shakyamuni. I am reading something about archeological finds. There are stupas in the Himalayan areas and one of them claims to have the remains of the third Buddha in it. But when they carbon-dated them they found that these remains are not that old, probably no more than 4000 years old. If that is true, then the time between the 2 Buddhas' appearance was not that long. Can you comment on that?

Rimpoche: I don't have the perfect answer but I can say something. The way they count is very strange. Buddha Shakyamuni came in the age where people lived to an average of 80 years. From 80 the average age of human beings, according to the Abhidharmakosha, will go down to 10. From then it will go up again. I don't know how many times up and down it is supposed to go, maybe 13, I don't know. Then Maitreya Buddha will become the official Buddha when the average age of human beings is 800. Think about that. If that is really true, it seems doubtful. Maybe I have been too long in America. It is very hard to say it is going to be exactly like that. I don't know how many 1000 years you would have to be counting. And is the human average age really going down from 80 to 10? At the moment it looks like it is going up. We are living longer than we used to, because of scientific advances, health care, available facilities, nutrition and so on. So am not sure which way the pendulum is moving. I really don't know. According to the texts books, Maitreya Buddha is supposed to come as official Buddha when the average age is 800. I didn't pay that much attention to this, even when I was studying as a kid. Somehow it didn't make much sense to me even in Drepung, Tibet in pre '59.

That doesn't mean that the Buddhadharma doesn't make sense. When you talk about compassion, emptiness, wisdom, etc, that really makes sense and is really true. But this area, whether the human average is going up and down and how many thousands of years are passing between 2 official Buddhas, I don't know. I am not saying it is not true, but I don't see it. Just according to the books it is supposed to be like that.

Audience: If the world situation gets too intense, could the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas intervene?

Rimpoche: That is different idea completely.

Audience: I heard Bob Thurman talking about that. At the time of Nixon he said maybe Avalokitesvara or Manjushri could do something.

Rimpoche: Maybe Thurman thought Manjushri would run with the sword into the White House and chase Nixon out!(general laughter)

I don't know. A lot of people raise that question when there is a natural disaster like a tsunami or when you have a hurricane like Kathrina. Then they ask, "What happened to the good Lord? Why didn't he do something?" "Why did God look away?" That is the same question to me. Will the Buddhas be worrying about people? For sure. Can the Buddhas remove peoples' suffering by hand? No. Can they wash away their suffering with water? No. The only thing they can do is share their personal experience. They will talk about the karmic principles, which means that creating good karma will bring good results and creating bad karmas will give bad results. This is not a short term process at all. I am not sure whether the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can intervene. I think they cannot. They want to but everybody is responsible for themselves. We are guided and driven by our karma. That makes us responsible for ourselves. If Buddhas could intervene and all the Buddhist protectors could help, then at the time when Chairman Mao decided to destroy the good old spiritual home of Tibet, why didn't they intervene? Probably they couldn't, because it was people's karma. There is quote:

Karma is so powerful that even great bodhisattvas sometimes take birth in hell realms.

That is how karma really functions. I am sure buddhas and bodhisattvas would love to intervene, I am sure, but I don't know whether they really can. What they can do is slowly changing people's minds and attitudes, their way of functioning, that will contribute. If the buddhas could intervene, there would be no dark eons, there would be no end of civilizations. There would be no apocalyptical events, no armageddons. They can't prevent that, because it happens according to karma. The world will change. It is not just the stock market going up and down. No, physically, literally, the planets will disappear eventually. New planets will come. If buddhas and bodhisattvas were interfering all the time, that would not happen.

Audience: I guess we are to take the ideas and information and meditate on them and that's how we arrive at the truth. So, how am I to do that, practically? I am new to this. Should I even start with this, or should I begin with something simpler?

Rimpoche: Well, you have attended this teaching and it is a very good one and you have now a lot of information. You somehow have to process it. Normally, there are three different processes. First, you collect information. Then, whatever you have collected, analyze it. Then, thirdly, whatever you find out through the analyzing, that's what you meditate on. That is how Jamgon Lama Tsong Khapa showed us how to practice. When he gave his autobiography he wrote

First I put all my efforts into learning, picking up information. Then I analyzed and tried to understand. Finally, I meditated day and night.

That way it is becoming part of your life, integrating with your personal functioning. That is the process in general, of how to follow Buddha's path.

Then all the different centers will give you specific instructions. We have a joke in Tibetan. Somebody tried to teach the alphabet, which goes in Tibetan ka kha nga, etc. So the teacher said to the student, "Sweetie, first you say ka". So the student repeated, "Sweetie, first you say ka". Then the teacher said, "Don't say it like that, just say ka." The student goes, "Don't say it like that, just say ka." Now, the teacher got impatient and said, "What are you talking? My fuck, just say ka."

So, some dharma centers may tell you, "First sit down, breathe in and breathe out, feel the breath at your nostrils, think about it, count your breaths, three times this way, three times that way until 9. That's good." You can do that too, if you like. We are educated, wonderful human beings. You are not going to repeat, "First you say ka". So you simply pick up the information and work with it and make sure it doesn't get stolen by the thief called "Forgetting". Analyze the essence, find out what is right and what is not right. Then, whatever you cannot find out by yourself, ask other people, read, maybe write, and whatever you find out, try to meditate on it and see if it has an effect on you.

If you are new, there is a great and simple way of doing that. That is Atisha's way. He was a Bengalian teacher who came to Tibet in the 1100s. Atisha started this system of leading people to the spiritual path, putting them on track to total enlightenment, which we call lam rim in Tibet. People are translating that as "graduated path", and things like that. I am teaching lam rim these days and I didn't think these translations were quite on the point. So I am calling it "Roadmap to Enlightenment".

When you drive on the road, you may have a GPS navigation system in your car. If you don't have that, you will look at a printed map. So the lam rim is really a road map to enlightenment. It will take you through different territories and finally lead you to enlightenment. That may be easy to start with.

For some people who don't want to think, but want to simply pray can say mantras like OM MANI PADME HUNG. That is also fine. It has its own little way of doing it. It is a little bit based on blind faith. One should not go into this with blind faith from the beginning. One should go with intelligent faith, try to learn more, think about it, analyze and then find the point on which you meditate. You know how to meditate, right? "Sit on the ground, if the ground is not there, sit on the chair". That is what Allen Ginsberg wrote in a poem called "Do the meditation".

We may have to call it a day, because people have to catch trains. So we should do a little dedication. That is important today. We had the teaching "In Praise of Dependent Origination". It is so beautiful. I would like to remind people in Jewel Heart that His Holiness taught in April this year on this teaching. He called it a lecture, because he wanted to teach on two texts and there was no way he could completely teach both. So he started picking the most important verses from both. So now, we have been able to receive the full teaching by HH Lochö Rimpoche. Now the information is with us. It is very much interconnected with the information through the workshop done by Geshe Yeshe Thapke in Ann Arbor in September on the Four Schools. It is also interconnected with the teachings that HH Lochö Rimpoche will do in Ann Arbor a week from now.

At the end of all of them we should get something out of it. Let's say the Four Immeasurables as dedication. (May all beings have happiness.....)

end of session